Background
Bryan Moran pleaded guilty in federal court to possessing fentanyl with intent to distribute after police found the drug in closed bags belonging to him during a warrantless search of his sister’s storage unit. The First Circuit later held that the government had not shown that Moran’s sister had actual or apparent authority to consent to a search of his bags. It reversed the denial of reconsideration of Moran’s suppression motion, vacated his conviction, and remanded. After the evidence was suppressed, the government dismissed the indictment because it could no longer proceed with the prosecution.
After serving 68 months, Moran sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for compensation under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1495 and 2513. He also invoked the Fourth Amendment, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, sought reimbursement for seized money and property, and later asserted an implied-in-fact contract and invasion-of-privacy theory. The District of Massachusetts denied Moran’s request for a certificate of innocence because he had not shown that he did not commit the charged acts or that he did not cause his prosecution through misconduct or neglect.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Moran’s unjust-conviction and imprisonment claim. A claimant seeking compensation under §§ 1495 and 2513 must prove the statutory innocence requirements through a certificate issued by the court that vacated or reversed the conviction. Vacatur based on an unconstitutional search, followed by dismissal because the prosecution could not proceed without the suppressed evidence, did not itself establish factual innocence or function as a certificate of innocence.
The court also lacked jurisdiction over Moran’s remaining theories. The Fourth Amendment is not money-mandating for Tucker Act purposes, tort and privacy claims fall outside the court’s jurisdiction, and Federal Tort Claims Act and § 1983 claims are not cognizable in the Court of Federal Claims. The alleged criminal-investigation seizure did not state a Fifth Amendment taking, and Moran alleged no facts establishing an implied-in-fact contract with the United States. Because his proposed amendments would not cure these defects, amendment was futile.
Key Takeaways
- A vacated conviction does not, by itself, entitle a former prisoner to compensation under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1495 and 2513.
- A claimant must supply a certificate of innocence establishing the elements specified in § 2513; an appellate suppression ruling is not a substitute.
- The Court of Federal Claims cannot hear constitutional tort, Federal Tort Claims Act, § 1983, or other tort-based claims merely because the claimant seeks money from the United States.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the difference between reversal for constitutional error and proof of factual innocence. Even when suppressed evidence leaves the government unable to retry a defendant, compensation under the federal unjust-conviction statute remains unavailable unless the claimant satisfies § 2513’s specific requirements and obtains the required certificate.
For practitioners, the ruling also illustrates the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims: the Tucker Act does not independently create a damages remedy, and relabeling search-and-seizure or tort allegations as contract or takings claims will not cure a jurisdictional defect without supporting facts and a money-mandating source of law.